Karnataka High Court
Shekar @ Guna Shekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7659
CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2282 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHEKAR @ GUNA SHEKAR
S/O VADIVEL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.40, 18TH CROSS
7TH MAIN ROAD,
N.S. PALYA, BTM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 078
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION
Digitally signed by
HEMAVATHY REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
GANGABYRAPPA
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SRI. LOKESH
S/O SELVAM
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT.NO.OLD NO.805
NEW NO.916, NEAR DPA SANGA
J.T.TREE SLUM, N.S.PALYA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7659
CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024
B.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY-560 078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN
(CR.NO.148/2020) SPL.C.NO.740/2020 OF MICO LAYOUT
POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,144,147,148,302,506
R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.25(1)(1-B)(B) AND 27(3) OF INDIAN
ARMS ACT 1959 AND 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL.JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is field by accused No.2 praying to set aside
the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.740/2020
(Crime No.148/2020 of Mico Layout Police Station) registered
for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302
and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC and
Sections 25(1),(1-B),(B) and 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959
NC: 2025:KHC:7659
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The impugned
order has been passed rejecting the bail application of the
appellant - accused No.2 sought in the said crime.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 - State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2
remained absent and unrepresented.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that as per column
No.7 of the charge sheet, on 03.08.2020 at about
8:30 p.m. when deceased Mani, CW.2 and accused Nos.5 and 6
were sitting, at that time accused Nos.1 to 4 came there and in
furtherance of the conspiracy between the accused persons,
accused No.1 assaulted deceased Mani with long chopper on his
face, accused No.2 assaulted with chopper on deceased and
when the deceased held the said chopper, accused No.1 told
accused Nos.5 and 6 to assault deceased to take revenge
against him as he has assaulted them. At that time, accused
Nos.5 and 6 held the deceased tightly and accused Nos.1 to 4
assaulted the deceased with long chopper on his head, face,
NC: 2025:KHC:7659
neck, ear, right hand, left hand and other parts of the body and
dragged him through the steps near the gate and there also
they assaulted the deceased and gave threat to CW.2 who was
eyewitness to the incident to kill him if he inform this incident
to police. The case has been registered against the accused
persons for the aforesaid offences and it is pending in
Spl.C.No.740/2020. Accused No.2 - appellant herein who has
been in judicial custody since 07.08.2020 has filed bail
application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned
order.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the appellant is in judicial custody since four years five
months and there is a delay in trial. He further submits that
out of 45 witnesses only 20 witnesses have been examined. He
further submits that the parents of the appellant - accused
No.2 are unwell and presence of this appellant - accused No.2
is required to take care of his parents. He further submits that
CW.2 - eyewitness has already been examined as PW.6.
Without considering all these aspect, the learned Special Judge
has erred in rejecting the bail application by the impugned
NC: 2025:KHC:7659
order. With this, he prayed for allowing the appeal and grant
bail to the appellant - accused No.2.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would
contend that the appellant is a rowdy sheeter and there are two
criminal cases pending against him. Already 20 witnesses have
been examined and the prosecution has to examine remaining
witnesses and there is no any delay in trial. If the
appellant - accused No.2 is granted bail, there is a threat to
other prosecution witnesses. Offence alleged against the
appellant is a heinous offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has
perused the impugned order and other charge sheet material
placed on record.
7. There is a serious overt act alleged against this
appellant - accused No.2 assaulting deceased Mani with long
chopper on face, head, neck and other parts of the body.
Merely because only eyewitness that is CW.2 has already been
examined, is not a ground for grant of bail. The prosecution
NC: 2025:KHC:7659
has already examined 20 witnesses. That itself indicates that
there is no delay in trial. Merely because the parents of the
appellant - accused No.2 are unwell, is not a ground for grant
of bail, as the offence alleged against the appellant - accused
No.2 is a heinous offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects, the
learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of
the appellant - accused No.2 by the impugned order. There are
no grounds made out for setting aside the impugned order and
grant of bail.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
KG
